George Will is entirely correct, but he's failing to account for one critical fact: Obama was elected without actually being a United States citizen. This in itself invalidated the Constitution, which means that Obamacare cannot, from a strictly legalistic sense, be unconstitutional.

Actually clicked the article expecting a George Will piece. I like to scan them to see how many sentences in it takes him to whip out a thesaurus and use a pretentiously big word to make himself sound smart. It's usually less than 5 sentences...

Also the "it's a tax law and the law did not originate in the House so it is unconstitutional" argument has been around and discussed since before it was actually voted on. Personally, I think it's worth discussing, but ultimately not something the Supreme Court would ever touch with a 100 foot pole because they hardly ever rule on congressional procedure issues. This is nothing new.

Car_Ramrod:ManateeGag: his argument argument about Social Security was kind of weak. "Do you still drive a 1935 car or watch a 1935 TV?"

I don't even get his argument on that one. He said he doesn't want to get rid of it either, just change it. I'm pretty sure Democrats are open to changing it, though perhaps not in the same ways.

I can't remember the last time I saw him on TV, and I forgot what a joyless twit he comes off as.

Oh, yeah. Very much THIS. He came off last night as a monumental asshole. And when he talked about baseball, it sounded like he was talking about work, not fun. The few laughs he had were of the "Oh, you simple peon. You can't understand my genius" variety.

ManateeGag:his argument argument about Social Security was kind of weak. "Do you still drive a 1935 car or watch a 1935 TV?"

Presumably by the same logic you wouldn't read an 1877 newspaper. I wonder if (one of) his employers would like the idea that old things should be completely scrapped after a while just because they are old?

Aquapope:ManateeGag: his argument argument about Social Security was kind of weak. "Do you still drive a 1935 car or watch a 1935 TV?"

I heard that last night on Colbert and had no idea what the hell he was talking about. Can you shed some light on this?

He's saying that today's Democrats are the ones who are actually conservative on Social Security because they don't want any changes to it whatsoever; while the Republicans have advocated a liberal approach because they want to tinker with it. Will is saying that the Democrats have essentially said that "What was put in place 80 years ago should never, ever be changed" and that is conservative.

The PPACA was attached as an amendment to a previously existing revenue-generating bill that had already originated in the House. The Senate is perfectly free to propose amendments to bills, per the exact same origination clause.

"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

It's like for every amendment to the US Constitution, they take a highlighter to only the words that they agree with.

ManateeGag:his argument argument about Social Security was kind of weak. "Do you still drive a 1935 car or watch a 1935 TV?"

His argument argument in TFA sounded like one of those libertarians saying, because the flag in the courtroom has gold braid on the edges the court is following admiralty law, so when the judge leaves the courtroom they can declare "man overboard!" and then name themselves as presiding judge and dismiss the case against them.

In other words, George, it's going to take more than just *you* declaring the ACA unconstitutional because reasons; you're going to need quite a few people actually in authority agreeing with your sophistry.

Aquapope:ManateeGag: his argument argument about Social Security was kind of weak. "Do you still drive a 1935 car or watch a 1935 TV?"

I heard that last night on Colbert and had no idea what the hell he was talking about. Can you shed some light on this?

Colbert: "I'm conservative, you're conservative, I don't think anything should ever change."Will: "That makes you a liberal?"Colbert: "LOLWUT?"Will: "Liberals don't want anything to change. Social Security was enacted in 1935. Do you use anything from 1935? No. Therefore, change social security."Colbert: ".... so anyways, about Wrigley Field...."

It's a fallacious argument in multiple ways:

1) It ignores all the ways conservatives want to maintain the status quo ("traditional" marriage for example)2) It ignores the fact that social security was a change the liberals enacted in the first place3) It argues that once a program is put in place, modifying it is by default a conservative position, regardless of the program or its modifications

I'm sure there are other ways it's a dumb argument, but it's so blatantly trollish, it's not worth the typing.

ACA originated in the House on September 17th and passed the Senate on Dec. 24th. George Will is incorrect on a point of fact. Will's point is incorrect.

What they don't like is that HR 3590 was not initially the PPACA. It was a different revenue generating bill. The Senate, knowing the Constitution, took HR 3590, attached a huge amendment to it (the PPACA), and re-named it.

"Introduced in the House as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) by Charles Rangel (D-NY) on September 17, 2009"

Yeah, maybe "dirty and sleazy", but within the rules. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

SunsetLament:Aquapope: ManateeGag: his argument argument about Social Security was kind of weak. "Do you still drive a 1935 car or watch a 1935 TV?"

I heard that last night on Colbert and had no idea what the hell he was talking about. Can you shed some light on this?

He's saying that today's Democrats are the ones who are actually conservative on Social Security because they don't want any changes to it whatsoever; while the Republicans have advocated a liberal approach because they want to tinker with it. Will is saying that the Democrats have essentially said that "What was put in place 80 years ago should never, ever be changed" and that is conservative.

Well, that's a dumb thing to say. First, it's ONE topic, so it's not really representative of which side is more amenable to change. Second, have there not been more than a few liberals who would like to increase the taxable income level for Social Security, and increase it substantially? Haven't there been some liberals who've suggested lowering the Social Security benefits for the wealthy?

So changing SS is not a deal-killer for liberals, just not change he's in favor of, which is privatizing SS so the wealthy can skim off even more money with no effort.

And what do 30s cars and TVs have to do with it. For a 'well-respected award winning' journalist, he can't create a metaphor worth a shiat.

ristst:Mitch Taylor's Bro: What if it's unconstitutional, but improves the lives of millions of people anyway?

That would depend on who gets the improvements.

Good point. I was thinking millions of poor people who lacked health care insurance due to financial or pre-existing conditions (or pre-existing financial conditions), but I suppose it could improve the lives of millions of health care insurance company executives and investors, too.

The Larch:That paper publish Cal Thomas and George Will editorials weekly. When I was 12, I remember respecting George Will, because he was the one who wasn't an obviously batshiat insane christofascist.

Although there was a little more variety published in the Austin-American Statesman about that time, I remember feeling about the same way. About both men.

Ok, I came in here intending to bash on subby for not having any reading comprehension. Since the article was taking a while do download, I had to wait till I could read it myself.

First line of article "Fox News contributor George Will on Sunday argued that the United States Supreme Court had inadvertently made President Barack Obama's health care reform law unconstitutional when the justices ruled that it was not unconstitutional "

So, Subby, please accept my sincere appology for my knee jerk reaction to your headline. I am now going to try to actually read the article to see what George was trying to say.

Mitch Taylor's Bro:ristst: Mitch Taylor's Bro: What if it's unconstitutional, but improves the lives of millions of people anyway?

That would depend on who gets the improvements.

Good point. I was thinking millions of poor people who lacked health care insurance due to financial or pre-existing conditions (or pre-existing financial conditions), but I suppose it could improve the lives of millionsthousands of health care insurance company executives and investors, too.

I want to own a business where I get paid by people who don't require my service while those who do require that service get said service paid for by the government. The government takes almost all the risk and I take almost all the profits.

Car_Ramrod:Will: "Liberals don't want anything to change. Social Security was enacted in 1935. Do you use anything from 1935? No. Therefore, change social security."Colbert: ".... so anyways, about Wrigley Field...."

It's a fallacious argument in multiple ways:

1) It ignores all the ways conservatives want to maintain the status quo ("traditional" marriage for example)2) It ignores the fact that social security was a change the liberals enacted in the first place3) It argues that once a program is put in place, modifying it is by default a conservative position, regardless of the program or its modifications

I'm sure there are other ways it's a dumb argument, but it's so blatantly trollish, it's not worth the typing.

Does the Hoover Dam not provide water and electricity to the south west any more?